Sarah Gavigan » You Tube

Music Licensing & YouTube…….and how they are beginning to work together

admin — Fri, 13 May 2011 22:04:59 +0000

It’s official folks, we have moved into the era of Sync Licensing 2.0.

Fees are down…competition is up. Right?

Depends on how you look at it. When I look at the business today I see:

- more opportunities for licensing songs on in TV shows and ads with growing cable and online content channels

- more opportunity to connect with your fan (and buyer) by licensing music

It’s a cup half full situation, not half empty.

The big question is not IF music licensing is good for creating fans and reaching potential buyers, but HOW. How many times have you heard a song on a TV Commercial or your favorite TV show and scrambled online to find out who it is? If you are like me; many. And, like me you have probably spent at least a half hour Googling only to land on an obscure forum page that might possibly host the name of the band whose music is in the commercial or show.

So why does it have to be so hard to find that information? It shouldn’t. It is the new frontier of music discovery by fans as a direct outcome of licensing your songs to Tv Shows and ads as the lead by YouTube.

In 2008 YouTube surpassed Yahoo as the #2 search engine in the world. Advertisers and TV networks have finally come on board and begun to use the “channel” as another distribution channel for their content. That makes YouTube the icing on the cake of getting a music license.

How you ask? TAGGING and LINKS.

Most every brand and TV show has a dedicated channel and every time they have a video (like an advertisement or an instructional video) they load it onto their YouTube channel.They also have the opportunity to add notes and TAGS. Tags are the keywords that you assign to the video that allow google to list it when you search for that same word. So if you get your music placed in A Holiday Inn Express add, you need to make sure that when they add that spot to the YouTube channel that the name of your band is listed in the tags AND in the notes.

YouTube has added some additional features that can make the connection even easier for consumers. It’s called CONTENT ID, check it out – YouTube has provided a video to help explain what this is all about.

Content ID – YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/01/watch-it-on-youtube-then-click-to-buy.html

Now, I look at this BANNER, or TAG, or LINK (whatever you want to call it) and I see the opportunity for a BAND or and ARTIST to SELL RECORDS if a they license their music to a piece of film, whatever the form (tv commercial, tv show, trailer, or feature film) and get a DIRECT identifier that the music is yours and a link t iTunes to buy it. Now nothing would please me more than to be able to provide a solid example of Content ID in action, but I CAN”T FIND ONE. That’s right. After looking at ALOT of videos, this is the only one I found. Random Ad with a random song in it – but it demonstrates what I am talking about.

WOW – a revelation……..connectivity. Haven’t major labels been whining about how they can’t sell any more records, well here is chance for anyone whose music is on YouTube to turn viewers into buyers.

I did a little recon on the issue this week and got pinged around from manager to label to digital distributor. I am still not 100% sure who is responsible for filing the music in behalf of the artist if they are signed to a major. I was actually waiting to publish this post until i had all that info until I got a link about a Jeep project today. Click on the image below to read the article.

First off, FINALLY the labels and Agencies understand that if you are going to pay alot of money for some music, then by god, make a lot of noise about it. Honk that publicity horn! Right???? It’s commerce…..right?

So then I decided that we are going to use these forthcoming spots by Chrysler Jeep featuring the music of Lenny Kravitz as an example of the YouTube Content ID program and see when they post these spots on the Jeep YouTube channel if they use the BUY THIS TRACK here tagging. Let’s see if the label is taking advantage of this opportunity.

I LOOOOOOVEEE a good stakeout.

Standby…

Licensing music of deceased artists to Advertising; moral or not?

admin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:20:22 +0000

I am not the best at checking on my social media channels, but today as I was working today I checked my YouTube page and found that the Chevy Corvette spot I finished last month and posted to my YouTube page had some serious comments on it. I felt the need to share this. First, take a look at the spot:

This track is unmistakable if you have ever been a fan of folk or bluegrass from the 60′s and 70′s. It’s timeless.

Here is what my commenter had to say:

A trend in the commercial music industry I have become greatly upset with is the using of classic American music, largely from the 60′s, to sell things on TV. After hearing the Stones or Nick Drake or now (sadly) John Fahey, countless times lined up with AT & T or Chevy I can’t help but think of their products when I listen to these artists albums at home. This makes me sad.

I don’t want to think of AT & T when I listen to Nick Drake, and I certainly don’t want to think of Chevy when I listen to John Fahey. It’s one thing for the Stones to sell the rights to their songs as they’re living, but lending deceased artists’ music to products in a manner they probably wouldn’t approve of is a morally dubious endeavor.

The two recent and unfortunate choices ( Nick Drake & John Fahey) of using tragic folk musicians, (Drake suicide, Fahey died alone and penniless) to sell items for large multi-billion dollar corporations smacks of a sad irony that plagues today’s commercial industry.

It is important that we do not treat art as a mere commodity. Most certainly John Fahey’s music has nothing to do with selling Chevy’s and I hope in the future you consider the importance and seriousness of the artists and their music whom you align with advertisements on TV. I ask you to think twice before lending deceased artists music to TV ads, ( especially people like John Fahey)

MY REPLY:

I think it is an extreme view to say that using their music is a “morally dubious endeavor.” When a piece of music is used, the rights holders are paid quite well. The music is used legally and the rights are given by the “owners” of that music.

As a matter of fact, one of the gentlemen who helmed this project is the son of one of the former members of The Kingston Trio, whom many consider to be as important a touchstone to folk music as Mr. Fahey was. I think he would agree, if the estate needs the money and the music is reflected in a positive light, it is a great thing for all parties.

So, let me repeat – the rights holders AGREED and they were paid well for the use of music in this commercial. I hope that Mr. Fahey was smart enough to see to it that his estate was set up in a way that his loved ones will get to see that money.

Music Licensing is one of the only consistent and reliable sources of revenue and marketing for artists today, and as the music business does, licensing in advertising follows the trends, and dare I say, sometimes we help set them. There are hundreds of artists who will see this spot and be inspired by the music. There are thousands of people who will see this spot and go buy John Fahey’s record, or even pull their old record back out.

You see this as a tragedy, but we see it as an homage that is one way to keep his spirit alive and back into the collective conscious of the music lovers everywhere. For the record, due to the resurgence in popularity of Nike Drake’s music after the Volkswagen commercial “Pink Moon” (which is arguable one of the best commercials ever made) the record label re-released his music with great success.

HIS REPLY:

You seem to miss my point. My point was not that the estates of Nick Drake and John Fahey may or may not being compensated nicely, it is that these artists, especially John Fahey, would not have wanted his music used to help sell Chevy cars. His music has nothing to do with Chevy cars. Fahey was an avidly independent and non-commercial artist by principle. It is simply inappropriate to use his serious and important music for a car commercial without his permission.

You repeatedly point out that , “everyone is paid nicely” . This however misses the principle of my point : John Fahey certainly would not have approved of his music being used to help Chevy boost its image.

MY REPLY

Your point is taken, but how do you know that Fahey and Drake would say no if they were alive today? There is simply no way to know. I staunchly (as said here) support artists right to say no to music licensing in ads or any other medium. I personally have worked with bands that have turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars based on principle. But I, again choose to see this as a positive broadcast of John Fahey’s music. Albiet that I am slightly biased, being a music supervisor in commercials.

This brings me to a larger point that you have helped me make sir:

ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS, be clear in your contracts and in your will what you ARE willing to have your music used for. If you have sold your publishing, then you may have lost creative control. The only REAL way we are to know your wishes is if you clearly leave them behind.

Who is to be held responsible for an artist or musicians wishes once he is gone? If the use of your music is important to you, then think about it, write it down and place it into the hands of people you trust. Music is immortal, and there is no way to tell what is coming in the future and in what crazy ways your music might be heard, but give it some serious thought. Don’t let others decide for you.

In the case of John Fahey, the executors of his estate (or if they no longer own the rights to the music, then the label and the publisher) are responsible for making the decision to lend use of a song on behalf of the Artist, not the Agency or the Brand.

To those of you out there who have additional opinions, lets here them.

From MIT: You Tube matters to Brands!

admin — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:45:53 +0000

To drive the point of my last post home, I want to show you a few sentences (provided by Boards Magazine) spoken by Joshua Green, from MIT regarding You Tube and Brands.

To view his entire speech at the 2009 BOARDS SUMMIT, you can view it HERE.

I found what he had to say fascinating, yet simple. Listen up brand stewards. Artists, licensing your music to a brand. DEMAND IT. Make it your creed.

Why YouTube Matters in Music Licensing

admin — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:16:08 +0000

Thanksgiving weekend, in my house means ALOT of football. And gratefully so, as it gave me the chance to catch up on new commercials.

I decided to conduct a test from my Dad’s couch regarding the connection between Music Licensing in commercials and You Tube. After seeing a spot with music I thought could be licensed, I would go to You Tube and type in “BRAND NAME commercial” to see if the spot comes up.

Most times it does, but not by the brand itself, simply posted by a fan.

Let’s back it up for a minute and talk about a very important issue if you are going to license your music. GET AS MUCH PROMOTION OUT OF IT AS POSSIBLE! I am talking to the music owners as well as the Brands here. If you are a brand that runs national TV spots – you should have your own You Tube channel and be the first one to post your spot. Fans are great, but don’t rely on them, and why miss out on cross-pollination with fans or potential fans of that hard won (and possibly very expensive) track you just licensed?

This is a fundamental theory – ‘You want to license your music to gain exposure and sell records.’ RIGHT?

And Brands, you want as many eyeballs on your brand as possible – RIGHT?

So let’s start making some meaningful connections and make Music Licensing about more than a paycheck. Artists, Bands and Labels, don’t throw away the opportunity of a multi-million dollar ad campaign, this may be the chance that takes your band from obscurity to fame, and it CAN sell records – but you have to drive users and make it easy for them. In case you haven’t noticed…..You Tube is FREE.

When I owned a Music House I was always preaching the gospel of “let the consumer know what the music is by talking about the brand everywhere the fans of the Artist live.” 2 Years ago that was a tall order, today it’s as easy as YOU TUBE TAGGING.

When you upload a video to You Tube you get the opportunity to add a DESCRIPTION and TAGS. Both are golden free opportunities to get your name (brand AND artist) to pop up in the top five when someone Google’s you.

Some examples:

#1) Cadillac 2010 SRX Ad – Song: Phoenix, 1901. The spot was posted on the Cadillac Channel – well done. Take a look at the tagging in the right column (click on MORE INFO to see the TAGS). Nothing about the artist. Now click on the link to the song I provided just above, it is the video on the Record Label’s site. Cadillac isn’t tagged here either.

By simply adding 11 free keystrokes on both sides and they would have had 60,000 + views cross pollinating from Cadillac to Phoenix and who knows how many from Phoenix to Cadillac. One video post for the song has over a Million hits.

#3) PALM PIXI Ad Song: Passion Pit “Sleepyhead”. Now this is a band that is HOT, no doubt they are looking to sell records, as they have not seen the pop radio success of Phoenix yet. Over 2MM hits on the French Kiss Record Label You Tube Channel for this song. Clearly it’s a hot song. Palm, NO You Tube Channel! Over 60,000 views from multiple postings of this spot – and in every one – the song is mentioned in the comment section. Big opportunity missed for Palm on this one. I did notice one posting where the fan created a link to the commercial, and then posted the commercial with a link to the spot. That’s a new feature. But again – that’s relying on a fan.

By working with the brand to create more connection, you can drive users to buying the record. Go to iTunes and look up the record. Do you see Palm Pixi mentioned? NOT ONCE. Free connections. You Tube Tagging could have changed this situation in less than 3 minutes.

#4) JC PENNEY Ad Song: Rosi Golan and Human “Follow the Arrow.” The brand posted the track on their channel, but not mention of Rosi Golan or Human in the tags. Then you find Rosi Golan’s Channel, and she has posted the same ad on her channel and gotten 5 TIMES more hits! JC Penney – you missed out on that one.

JC Penney’s Post

Rosi Golan’s Post

Now lets talk about someone that did it right.

#3) DAYS INN Ad Song: Jess Penner “Here Comes the Sunshine”. If you Google DAYS INN COMMERICAL, this post is right at the top. Days Inn has a You Tube Channel and they have tagged the Artist Jess Penner (might I add they even gave Production credits – kudos on that one). They made her track available on the website for free and she is for sale on iTunes. Total connectivity.

Now Jess Penner didn’t have the groundswell to begin with that Phoenix and Passion Pit did, but it shows you how easy it is to connect the dots.

As Artists, ASK the brands if they are posting the spot on You Tube when they license your spot. You have the right. As Brands, why not ride the wave of connection if you are choosing to license music?

I look forward to the results.

Multiple use for Ads for Music – is it used enough? or even well?

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:34:01 +0000

I got my New Music Tipsheet email this morning form Scott Perry. This had to be re-posted. His point is solid and applies to so many different industries right now:

The other night, I’m heading to The Roxy when I see a big ol’ bus sign for the new Courntey Cox series ‘Cougar Town,’ airing Wednesdays this fall on ABC. And so, they’ve got this 8′ x 3′ closeup of CC’s face (yeah, they used to call her CC back when she was growing up in Alabama, so I’m told), and I’m thinking, “Wow, what a wasted opportunity — with a show title like ‘Cougar Town,’ they could’ve showed a vampy picture of Courtney, and left enough space for fans to take their picture next to her, and posted their pix onto Facebook or Flickr!”

Instead, what do we get? A head shot begging to magic marker a good old-fashioned “balls on the chin” on Courtney’s visage (don’t forget the eyepatch and the blackened teeth there, Picasso).

What I’m trying to illustrate is that these days nothing, and I mean nothing, should ever be created for single-use. With the viral capabilities of the web, every single piece created should be used and re-used to promote your product, from the album art to the t-shirt to the banner ad to the show itself.

This should be every manager’s most-often used question — “How else can we use this?”

Every single touch point for your artist should have a takeaway viral marketing aspect — single song streams should be embeddable, trackable; official pix & videos should have your URL in the bottom right; every show should have the band’s name in a backdrop or at least on the bass drum head; t-shirt designs should have the band’s name legible from a satellite, as well as have easter eggs hidden in the imagery.

As crass as it is, I’d have a kid dressed in Bowling 4 Soup’s “My Wena” (totally NSFW, btw) phallus costume, taking pictures at the merch booth with fans two hours before the show, and then letting the kids download the pix from the Bowling for Soup site in exchange for their email address!

Food for thought: The iPhone is the #1 camera used on Flickr; in 10 months, the iPhone will be the #1 camera used on YouTube. What are you doing to take advantage of this trend? You WANT your fans to take pictures & audio & video and pass it along to their friends. Not every show should be an aliens-and-confetti cannon extravaganza like the Flaming Lips, but give your fans something to talk about.

But speaking fan-to-fan, I’d be remiss in not saying this to EVERYBODY (I’ll admit, I’m just as guilty): you ain’t Scorsese, and this ain’t ‘The Last Waltz’. After the first two songs, quit taking pictures of you and your girlfriend in front of the stage. Put down the camera, pick up the beer, and just enjoy the freakin’ show, okay?

I love Scott’s Post for so many reasons. The word ARTIST in his post could be easily replaces with CLIENT and applied to advertising, but this is precisely where Music and Advertising are linked. As creatives in the Music and Advertising business, we must think ahead, be more clever and not so myopic. “This is a TV ad,” or “this is only outdoor advertising” just wont cut it anymore. There have been a few great examples lately. One I remember was a kiosk attatched to a bus stop for Target. You could plug your headphones into the wall to listen to John Legend’s new record. SMART.

Another direct example of the Ad industry point of view would would be common acceptance for “this is only music for my ad.” Let’s face it, Agencies and by proxy, clients spend a lot of money on music, be it Original or Licensed; you should get more out of it. But as any of us in the Commercial Production world know, that would take a lot of forethought that comes in direct connection with MEDIA, and that my friends, it a whole other posting.

The sooner the Ad biz takes cues form Scott’s post, the sooner they will be able to create more engaging ads and make thei clients money go further. It’s ain’t rocket science folks.

Everyone – check out Scott’s New Music Tipsheet, it is a staple in my information highway.

scott@sperrymedia.com

http://www.newmusictipsheet.com

Thanks Scott!

Who Actually Cares about the Ads You Make?

admin — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:43:13 +0000

A few nights ago, as I was reading through my backed up RSS feeds, I received an email from American Airlines; “Your friend Jennifer has asked that you watch this film!” The promotion was a 150 second film about the new “Flex Miles Program” for redeeming miles online. It was hideous visually. My 5 year old could have created it in Keynote. I actually rolled my eyes a few times, but I sat through the entire video and then went on to add my own “recommend this to a friend” in order to receive my OPPORTUNITY TO WIN A SHARE OF ONE MILLION MILES.

A nebulous promise, but nonetheless I was set on completing the task no matter how bad this film looked.

In this day and age, who doesn’t want extra miles?

Upon completion of this promotion, I quickly shot off an email to my friend Jennifer thanking her for sending the email my way and lastly commenting on how terrible the ad was. She agreed.

But was it terrible?

The thought brought me back to a blog post from Jeff Goodby. As one of the many who “virtually” attended Cannes this year through the blogs and pictures of those who went, I have to say – my favorite Cannes yet. Mr. Goodby’s post on WE ARE BECOMING IRRELEVANT AWARD CHASERS really stuck in my head. Read this blog. To paraphrase, he bravely says, that many of the winners at Cannes are ads or campaigns that live only in obscurity to the population at large. Does that make it good advertising? A quote:

“We’ve created a system that rewards work that is increasingly unknown to anyone outside the business. We have become connoisseurs of esoterica. And in the process, we’re becoming more about us, and less about changing the world.”

This train of thought sent me hunting for an email a friend and colleague who holds a very high post at a global Agency sent me:
“Check out this video the Agency just finished, it is the first Music Video for the Agency. It made #16 on Ad Critic.”

The video was great, and I applaud an Agency for branching out to new avenues of work and also for using the company’s creative talents to help Bands and Artists, but it was the Ad Critic comment that got me. Why does Ad Critic mean so much to our industry? What is more important to the overall success of this music video; it’s rank on Ad Critic or aiming for critical mass on You Tube hits?

This was a great example of exactly what Jeff Goodby had so boldly stated. Advertising is defined (by Webster’s Dictionary) as: the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements. Then shouldn’t the success of an ad be judged on how many people it reached rather then industry accolades?

Let’s go back to the American Airlines online Ad. Very average visually, but it worked. Jennifer watched it, I watched it and my mom watched it. Mission accomplished. By definition this was a GREAT ad, regardless of my aversion to the visuals.

“Our video made #16 on Ad Critic.” “How?” your client asked.
“We submitted it to Ad Critic and a bunch of other Ad people voted it forward.

(SFX – screeching of brakes)………….. lets try this again.

“Our video got over ONE MILLION hits on You Tube in the first week.” “How?” your client asked.
“We tapped into a whole new community for the Band online through an online viral strategy.”

I love great creative and a well-produced ad as much as anyone in our business, but more than that I have come to appreciate an ad that works. Mr. Goodby, I’m with you.